Conditioned Suppression as an Animal Psychophysical Technique

  • James Smith

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to describe and evaluate the conditioned suppression technique for the measurement of sensory thresholds in animals. Conditioned suppression was described by Estes and Skinner in 1941, but the technique was not used in animal psychophysics until recently. In a conditioned suppression experiment, a warning stimulus, which is terminated with a brief unavoidable electric shock, is superimposed on a baseline of ongoing lever pressing or key pecking independent of any responding by the animal. Conditioned suppression has, then, the advantages of aversive control while the ongoing behavior of the animal is being maintained on a positive reinforcement schedule.

Keywords

Rhesus Monkey Olfactory Bulb Suppression Ratio Conditioned Suppression Critical Flicker Fusion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Audubon, J. J. 1826. Account of the habits of the turkey buzzard, Vultur aura, particularly with the view of exploding the opinion generally entertained of its extraordinary power of smelling. Edinburg New Philadelphia J., 2:172–184.Google Scholar
  2. Azrin, N. H. 1959. A technique for delivering shock to pigeons. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 2:161–163.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bang, B. G., and S. Cobb. 1968. The size of the olfactory bulb in 108 species of birds. The Auk, 85:55–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chaddock, T. E., D. L. Roll, B. Chaddock, and J. C. Smith. 1969. Immediate detection of brief X-ray exposure. Radiat. Res. Soc, 39:548.Google Scholar
  5. Cooper, G. P., and D. J. Kimeldorf.1964. Electroencephalographic desynchronization of irradiated rats with transected spinal cords. Science, 143:1040–1041.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooper, G. P., and D. J. Kimeldorf. 1965. Effects of brain lesions on electroencephalographic activation by 35 kVp and 100 kVp X-rays. Int. J. Radiat. Biol., 9:101–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dalton, L. W. Jr. 1967. Conditioned suppression as a technique for determination of auditory sensitivity in pigeons. J. Aud. Res., 7:25–29.Google Scholar
  8. Dalton, L. W. Jr.1968. Auditory sensitivity in the rhesus (Macaca mulatto) and the white throated capuchin (Cebus Capuchinus) monkey: a comparison of three techniques. 6571st Aeromedical Research Laboratory, Holloman Air Force Base, New Mexico, Technical Report Number ARL-TR-68–14.Google Scholar
  9. DeValois, R. L.1965. Behavioral and electrophysiological studies of primate vision. In Neff, W. D., ed. Contributions to Sensory Physiology, New York, Academic Press, Inc., pp. 137–178.Google Scholar
  10. Dinc, H. I., and J. C. Smith. 1966. Role of the olfactory bulbs in the detection of ionizing radiation by the rat. Physiol. Behav., 1:139–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duncan, D. G. 1968. The establishment of conditioned suppression to temperature increases and decreases in rhesus monkeys. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Florida State University.Google Scholar
  12. Estes, W. K., and B. F. Skinner. 1941. Some quantitative properties of anxiety. J. Exp. Psychol., 29:390–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garcia, J., D. J. Kimeldorf, and E. L. Hunt. 1961. The use of ionizing radiation as a motivating stimulus. Psychol. Rev., 68:383–395.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Garcia, J., N. A. Buchwald, B. H. Feder, and R. A. Koelling. 1962. Immediate detection of X-rays by the rat. Nature, 196:1014–1015.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garcia, J., N. A. Buchwald, G. Back-y-Rita, B. H. Feder, and R. A. Koelling. 1963. Electroencephalographic responses to ionizing radiation. Science, 140:289–290.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garcia, J., N. A. Buchwald, B. H. Feder, R. A. Koelling, and L. Tedrow. 1964. Sensitivity of the head to X-ray. Science, 144:1470–1472.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. George, H. W. 1968. A comparison of two methods for determination of flicker fusion thresholds. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Tulane University.Google Scholar
  18. Hendricks, J. 1966. Flicker thresholds as determined by a modified conditioned suppression procedure. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 9:501–506.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Henton, W. W. 1966. Suppression behavior to odorous stimuli in the pigeon. Doctoral Dissertation, Florida State University.Google Scholar
  20. Henton, W. W. 1969. Conditioned suppression to odorous stimuli in pigeons. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 12:175–185.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Henton, W. W., J. C. Smith, and D. Tucker. 1966. Odor discrimination in pigeons. Science, 153:1138–1139.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Henton, W. W., J. C. Smith, and D. Tucker. 1969. Odor discrimination in pigeons following section of the olfactory nerves. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol., 69:317–323.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hoffman, H. S., M. Fleshier, and P. Jensen. 1963. Stimulus aspects of aversive controls: The retention of conditioned suppression. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 6:575–583.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hurst, C. M., and J. F. Lucero. 1966. A collar and chain procedure for handling and seating Macaca mulatta 6571st Aeromedical Research Laboratory, Holloman Air Force Base, Technical Report Number ARL-TR-66–14.Google Scholar
  25. Kamin, L. J. 1961. Trace conditioning of the conditioned emotional response. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol., 54:149–153.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kamin, L. J. 1965. Temporal and intensity characteristics of the conditioned stimulus. In Prokasy, W. F., ed., Classical Conditioning: A Symposium, New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts, ch. 7, pp. 118–147.Google Scholar
  27. Kenshalo, D. R. 1963. Improved method for the psychophysical study of the temperature sense. Rev. Sci. Instrum., 34:883–886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Masterton, B., H. Heffner, and R. Ravizza. 1969a. The evolution of human hearing. J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., 45:966–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Masterton, B., H. Heffner, and R. Ravizza. 1969b. Personal communication.Google Scholar
  30. Michelsen, W. J. 1959. Procedure for studying olfactory discrimination in pigeons. Science, 130:630–631.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Morris, D. D. 1966. Threshold for conditioned suppression using X-rays as the pre-aversive stimulus. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 9:29–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Powell, R. W. 1966. The pulse-to-cycle fraction as a determinant of critical fusion in the pigeon. Doctoral Dissertation, Florida State University.Google Scholar
  33. Powell, R. W. 1967. The pulse-to-cycle fraction as a determinant of critical flicker fusion in the pigeon. Psychol. Rec, 17:151–160.Google Scholar
  34. 40.
    Powell, R. W. and J. C. Smith. 1968. Critical flicker fusion thresholds as a function of very small pulse-to-cycle fractions. Psychol. Rec, 18:35–.Google Scholar
  35. Price, L. L., L. W. Dalton Jr., and J. C. Smith. 1967. Frequency DL in the pigeon as determined by conditioned suppression. J. Aud. Res., 7:229–239.Google Scholar
  36. Schrier, A. M., and D. S. Blough. 1966. Photopic spectral sensitivity of Macaque monkeys. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol., 62:457–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shaber, G. S., J. A. Rumsey III, B. C. Dorn, and R. L. Brent. 1967. Saccharin behavior taste thresholds in the rat. Fed. Proa, 26:543.Google Scholar
  38. Shumake, S. A.1968. Critical fusion frequency as a method of determining photopic and scotopic spectral sensitivity in rhesus monkeys. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Florida State University.Google Scholar
  39. Shumake, S. A. C. A. Hatfield, and J. C. Smith. 1966. Brightness difference thresholds in the pigeon using the conditioned suppression technique. Psychon. Sci., 6:313–314.Google Scholar
  40. Shumake, S. A. J. C. Smith, and H. L. Taylor. 1968. Critical fusion frequency in rhesus monkeys. Psychol. Rec, 8:537–542.Google Scholar
  41. Shumake, S. A. J. C. Smith, and D. Tucker. 1969. Olfactory intensity difference thresholds in he pigeon. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol, 67:64–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sidman, M., B. A. Ray, R. L. Sidman, and J. M. Klinger. 1966. Hearing and vision in neurological mutant mice: A method for their evaluation. Exp. Neurol., 16:377–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Smith, J. C. 1967. The effect of sectioning the primary olfactory nerves on the immediate response of the pigeon to X-ray exposure. Paper read at meetings of the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston.Google Scholar
  44. Smith, J. C. and D. Tucker. 1969. Olfactory mediation of immediate X-ray detection. In Pfaffman, C., ed., Olfaction and Taste, New York, Rockefeller University Press, vol. III, pp. 288–298.Google Scholar
  45. Smith, J. C. J. Hendricks, D. D. Morris, and R. Powell. 1964. Immediate response in the pigeon to brief X-ray exposure (abstract). Radiat. Res., 22:237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stager, K. E.1967. Avian olfaction. Amer. Zool., 7:415–419.Google Scholar
  47. Taylor, H. L., J. C. Smith, and C. A. Hatfield. 1967. Immediate behavioral detection of X-rays by the rhesus monkey. 6571st Aeromedical Research Laboratory, Holloman Air Force Base, Technical Report Number ARL-TR-67–20.Google Scholar
  48. Taylor, H. L., J. C. Smith, A. H. Wall, and B. Chaddock. 1968. Role of the olfactory sensory system in the detection of X-rays by the rhesus monkey. Physiol. Behav., 3:929–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tucker, D. 1963. Physical variables in the olfactory stimulation process. J. Gen. Physiol., 46:453–489.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tucker, D. 1965. Electrophysiological evidence for olfactory function in birds. Nature, 207:34–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Weiss, B., and V. G. Laties. 1962. A foot electrode for monkeys. J. Exp. Anal. Behav., 5: 535–536.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1970

Authors and Affiliations

  • James Smith
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations